attorney with that standard for approval to the court versus the national security agency taking the standard to the court. would that make sense? would that be too cumbersome? would that not be walkable? -- workable? >> the reason the standard is used in our system is to -- as for police authors to determine whether they can stop and frisk somebody. they have to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that that person is engaged in some sort of activity that could be illegal. and that is a decision that is made by the cop on the street at the time. it is meant to be a relatively low standard, but a protective standard to allow them to do this for public safety. so we are in an area where we are applying it in an area where there is not any constitutional protection. we are applying it in a way that i think needs to be nimble and needs to be consigned to the people who are actually applying it day-to-day. >> mr. chairman, can i add one additional -- >> sure. >> we have a vote at 5:00, and it is important that we get to that panel. >> i think most of the analogies to the criminal court